She set off the fireworks

[BombadEER]

 

[atlanta cock#]

I don't care for Podesta, but I'm not sure I agree that Podesta was squirming. She made allegations that he denied. What does that prove?

 

[BombadEER]

She had the truth right in front of him and he still lied. Lying is becomie the Dem trade mark

 

[atlanta cock#]

She had the truth right in front of him and he still lied. Lying is becomie the Dem trade mark

As I said, I don't like Podesta, and I'm definitely not defending him, but she was quoting newspaper articles. That's not evidence. In fact, in our current climate newspaper articles are about as non-credible as there is. In any event, I didn't really see him squirm. In fact, it sounds to me like he held an ownership position in a US company that had other owners including a Russian company. He divested when he was required to, and it further sounds like he followed his lawyer's advice.

My whole point is this. Don't be like the Dems and try to create the appearance of impropriety when none exists. It undermines credibility and makes the accuser look foolish. ln this case, the guy who was broadcasting the matter was trying to make it a Perry Mason moment. But, it wasn't even close. Bartiromo should have posted the articles on the screen. She also should have dug more into how and where Podesta divested, if he simply transferred ownership to his kids. But, even then I don't see the issue if it's a US company.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

..........My whole point is this. Don't be like the Dems and try to create the appearance of impropriety when none exists. It undermines credibility and makes the accuser look foolish. ln this case, the guy who was broadcasting the matter was trying to make it a Perry Mason moment. But, it wasn't even close. Bartiromo should have posted the articles on the screen. She also should have dug more into how and where Podesta divested, if he simply transferred ownership to his kids. But, even then I don't see the issue if it's a US company.

If it wasn't Russian-linked, why did his lawyer tell him to divest at all? Obviously it was shady. These criminals usually set up a shell to accept illegal/unethical/treasonous payments. The Clintons just use their "foundation". This fool Podesta did not do that and when he had to create separation, he transferred ownership to his children.
One would not think that is adequate, but we must keep in mind; these criminals, during the Obama reign, thought they had achieved total victory over the US justice system. The attitude of the criminals like Podesta, Lynch, Rice, Obama, Holder, Clinton etc. was, "we can't be arrested because now we are the law". They thought they had a large enough majority fooled with the promise of free stuff and protection for deviants and cowards.
Losing the election was outside their scope of imagined possibilities. When the American worker rose up to take the country back, it was an earthshaking, mind blowing catastrophe for which they were not prepared. Thus we see loose ends which were not cut like these criminals would normally do. They didn't think they had to anymore.
Jeff Sessions knows what they did. It is guaranteed, some of them are going to jail for it.